But don't you hate it when you think you have come up with a absolute corker and no one gets it?
And if you have to explain it then somehow the humor of it gets lost in the explanation.
This happened to me recently on the Sydney Anglicans forum when discussing a book on the Men and Church thread. We were discussing John Elredges book Wild at Heart and the premise behind it where men and church are becoming to feminised.
Someone posted the following
Craig, Fred agreed with the basic premise of Eldredge’;s book, but would never EVER recommend it to ANYONE due to itsMy reply which I thought was a absolute corker and brilliant play on words was,
- dreadful use of scripture
- over reliance on pop culture examples
- embrace of Open Theism ie God as Risk Taker
I didn’;t read all of it, but did hear quite a bit of it as Fred read bits of it out in horrified tones!~ I know Vaughan (son) tried to read it but ended up throwing it across room in disgust.
Have you found any problems at all in Eldredge’s use of Scripture?
I guess my philosophy is to do what Paul said to us in mimicking what ever he did…Perhaps it was lost on them with my following statement
I think if he and the other Apostles were modern day student’s at Moore or any other theological college they would have been chided on their terrible use of Scripture in making their pointsOn a more serious note; in critiquing a book - we need to first consider the whole message of the book. Then in light of that message, critique the message / premise on its Biblical merit and not pull it apart on its seemingly sloppy handling of Scripture.
After all isn't that what the Authors of the NT have done to illustrate the points they wanted to get across?